tv Newsmakers CSPAN September 18, 2011 10:00am-10:30am EDT
held them as ideals for all people to strive toward. people will go on debating jackie kennedy or martin luther king are benjamin franklin as a biographical figure. but the ideals are what endure. host: carl anthony, let me let you listen to one last piece with jackie kennedy. we heard about the cuban missile crisis. this is about the bay of pigs. >> i remember so well that that happened, whatever the a was, it was in the morning. he came back to the white house. he started to cry. but just with maine, he put his head in his hands and wept. i have only seen him cry about three times. twice the winter he was sick,
but tears would roll down his cheek. and then that time. and then when patrick, when we came back from the hospital, and he walked in one morning about 8:00 in my room, he stopped and put his arms around it. and it was so sad, because all of his dreams, and for this awful thing to happen, and he cared so much. he did not care about is 100 days, but for this poor man. with all the hopes and promises, and they were shot down like adults. he cared so much about them. host: in our remaining minute, what did you take away from that and the 7.5 hours that you listen to overnight?
guest: what is fascinating with jackie kennedy, even the president kennedy sought to have a barrier on his home life as a refuge from work, it is inevitable when you work above the store, so to speak, when you live above the store, that fine line will often be crossed. there is another portion talking about the cuban missile crisis and how the national security advisor actually comes into the president's bedroom, and the president and his wife are asleep in bed together. he has to get the president up to take this call. what is interesting about that clip that you gave, what i took away from this is that he had taken a call from the secretary of state, and jackie, although she was comforting him, also
said, what is it about? so she did want to know and she did have a curiosity. yes, these tapes, she makes her husband sound wonderful. yes, it seems like i who had all the problems and have all the wisdom to solve them. i think you will find that true of almost every first lady, that they may have a few points where they disagree, but they are going to see the prospective -- perspective and take on a in a defensive way that you point and the choices and decisions that there has been made. really there is no one closer and nobody who has no other ulterior motive than a spouse. i think you would find that whether the president was a female president coming to a fine husband felt that way, but
there are points where they may disagree. even eleanor roosevelt, who had very contentious trade agreements, really defended the roosevelt administration. and the choices made by her husband. host: joining us from los angeles, carl anthony. thank you very much for getting up early on a sunday morning and sharing with our audience your perspective on the jackie kennedy recordings. guest: you're welcome. host: we will continue this conversation tomorrow. among more topics, dean baker joining us, the co-director of the center for economic and policy research. james sherk with a round table on the republican job proposals. you may have heard about a story with regard to a number of items that come from pharmaceutical companies, they come from
overseas. up to 80% of chemicals and other ingredients are made outside the united states. what does this mean for your safety? and then a reporter from "the military times" talking about the cost of military pensions. that is tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. on the "washington journal." thank you for being with us on sunday. enjoy the rest of your weekend and have a great week ahead. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] ♪ >> the ranking democrat of the house, energy, and commerce commission on "newsmakers."
and then, "the contenders." a look at the life of james blaine. and cutting taxes and increasing spending. >> i want to begin asking you about the president postponed jobs plan. are you confident that this will create jobs? if so, which parts will do so? >> i think his proposal will create jobs and do so right away. it is not the answer to our problems. it is the beginning of the
answer. we have got to get people working. and get people working, it will help our economy starts growing again. when we talk about deficit cutting, that should not be our first priority by now. we need to get people into the jobs and do lall of the things that need to be done, like working on our infrastructure, working on construction, helping local governments to what they need to do. this is not as mass of a bill as i would hope for. it is an important step and we need to take it. the president took a lot of the ideas republicans had been for in the past. he said these are bipartisan proposals. they are not that controversial. they get money into people's hands who need it and will start spending it. that will produce jobs for people to try to satisfy the
demands that will be created. >> these ideas in the president also planned are joining fire from republicans and democrats. don't you think this is going to have a problem in the current form. you think it has to be broken down in separate parts? >> the proposal has two parts. the jobs program using the tax code to get money into people's hands to create the ability for people to go out and buy the things they need and to provide the infrastructure we need in this country. when people are working, that will help the economy. the other part of the bill is to pay for it.
there is a committee looking at deficit-reduction. they can reduce the deficit even more. they can come up with the necessary money to pay for the jobs bill we cannot just sit on our hands and not give the economy a boost. >> the tax cut you mentioned may be the only party republicans will go along with. will the democrats be able to get on board with a bill that only addresses the tax cuts part of the plan? >> my own view is that you keep pushing for. if you are asking me if they could not get the whole package would they take what they can get, of course. mighthe president's bill
be all we can imagine getting with the republicans in control of the house of representatives. you need a far broader jobs bill than what the president proposed. we need to get as much as we can to get people to work. that has to be the highest priority. >> the competing republican plan is scaling back regulations, everything from epa rules, coal ash. obama himself nixed the ozone rule. is there a plan to address some of these regulations? >> the republicans do not believe in regulations of any sort. they called regulations job killers. they got that phrase from their spin-meisters.
when we tried to stop mercury pollution from these power plants -- are kiri is a top pollutants -- mercury is a top lieutenant -- pollutant. there is a huge price that we pay. you would think that for republicans, the only price we pay for regulations is the price we pay to enforce them. but it is many more multiples of the cost of getting the job done. they want to repeal the regulations. they would like to repeal the clean air act and the protection of our environment. if the government does not insist that industries do what is necessary to protect the public from pollution from the sources that they control, no one is going to do it voluntarily. >> do you see no room for
compromise? >> i am open for compromise. this is the most anti- environment house in the history of the congress of the united states. there have been 250 votes so far trying to block the environmental regulations. the republicans take the view that there is no climate change. every other day we hear about a whether it event that is causing enormous damage to our country and all around the world. they put their heads in the sand and denied site. they denied evolution. they denied global warming. they do not think it is a problem so they do not want to do anything about protecting the environment. this is a public health issue.
the republicans are stuck in the fossil fuel past. they are getting support from the fossil fuel industry. they conveniently wants to block anything that will protect the public health if the industries do not like it. >> you said earlier this week in committee that he had approached of publicans -- republicans about the epa regulations they would like to delay or abolished. what specific aspects of this regulation do you think you can find some common ground on? >> here are details where we can give some ground in terms of time frames, in terms of what would be required, what sequence. we approached the republicans to say to them, let's work something out.
if we can work out a bipartisan agreement, we are likely to get along. otherwise, what i think the republicans have been doing is passing extreme measures that and not going to get through the senate. i do not think the president will sign it. the idea are trying to gets -- to do a show with their political right wing. we suggested working together. the response we got was, why should we work with you? we are the majority. we are going to get what we want. they are not want to work with us or compromise. i will not go into detail about what the compromise will be. they are so anxious to tear down the epa, the clean air act, environmental laws -- someone at "the washington post" said they wanted to repeal the 20th- century.
we would not have got to the's carriers -- social security, medicaid and medicare. they want to eliminate the grand bargain where we recognize we have to do things for people and help each other. they want to repeal the grand bargain and replace it with more tax cuts for the rich and war breaks for industry. >> do you view because the's decision to delay the anti-smog rules -- the president's decision to delay the anti-smog compromise? >> the white house intervened and decided to put it off. their argument was that in a couple of years there will be more science and they can be
fined the rule. the white house also argued that one of the rules that the republicans want to repeal next week on the house floor would reduce pollution in one state that affects the air in another state. the state that is the victim in the area can come into compliance with the help based standards. let's make sure we get this in a state rule in place before we start setting standards. some areas will not be able to come into compliance. i understand the argument. they should have gone forward. it was the wrong decision on the merits. it was the wrong decision on the politics. they were easing up on this rule, but they will hold the line on the other environmental rules and stand up to republican efforts to repeal it environmental laws of our country. >> you seemed to suggest in a
hearing that the demonstration used bad judgment in making a guarantee to the solendra company. do you believe the administration used bad judgment? >> i think we need to impress to give this matter and find out what happened. this may be a possibility. the thing that bothered me most was that the ceo came into my office and said he was in a good financial situation. the revenues were going to increase. within one month, they went into bankruptcy. i want to know what the company represented to the administration when they were trying to get their loan guarantee and when they were trying to get further forbearance with allowing the additional money to be raised by the company by investors and
have the guaranteed applied to those as well. >> did you oppose a subpoena by the energy and commerce chairman in an attempt to get this information? >> i opposed the subpoena not because i thought we were not entitled to the subpoena to get the information. i thought you wait to get the subpoena after you have asked what you need to get. then if they refuse, you can get a subpoena. we need to see a lot of information. they said they were just going in and asking for a subpoena. i indicated that if we did not get the information, i would support a subpoena. >> if i can remind the the words of the story -- viewers of the
story, this company received a loan guarantee for -- guarantee from the federal government and declared bankruptcy. >> this was a loan made in 2005. if we want swind energy. , we have to get them funding. they are just getting started. investors and lenders do not want to lend them the money. government said, we will guarantee the loan so that they can raise the capital. when they start up, it is expensive. it is only when they get a large scale production at the cost can go down. so then draw -- the company was struggling. it was a risky venture. it is risky to go into these
areas. when they got going, we saw the price of solar energy drop because of what is going on in china. the solar industry in the united states has dropped dramatically. in china, it has gone up enormously. what we are doing is referring to china to be the leaders in these areas. we should be the leaders. losing over $500 billion, i would never taken lightly. we should get the facts before we make accusations. and republican try to make a lot out of the idea that vice president biden wanted to go and visit the company. it wanted to make sure the loan guarantee was approved as quickly as possible. that was not because they wanted the loan guarantees approved
quickly, but it looks like this company would be the future. they would provide cheaper energy than we now have been less polluting energy that is less dependent on foreign oil. they are stretching it to look for a scandal that i do not see. thea scandal on administration's part. i still want an explanation from the ceo of the company. the ceo is going to testify. >> do you think the loan guarantee program needs to be restructured? how would you propose to modify its? ? >> a lot of people do not like the loan guarantee program. they do not like clean energy.
coal company managers not like clean energy. if we did not have the on guarantees for renewable energy, they would have to borrow money and no one would ban did to them unless there are these kinds of guarantees. we can look at restructuring, but a lot of people do not want a restructuring. they want to end the program so that we can have a permanent renewal. >> would you support some kind of program that would not strictly be loan guarantees going to be companies? >> i am open to looking at companies like that. we need to develop new sources
of energy. they do not want competition for the oil companies and the coal companies. >> republicans are saying this company is not alone in this. there are other issues to drop and other companies that received this loan guarantee that were not worry, as well. >> we will have to see. they may have been risky. they deserve to the loan guarantee to give them a start. you are taking a risk. you hope the rest will pay off. it is in our national in district -- national interests. industries are starting up and taking off. the price of solar energy has dropped dramatically.
we are going to be importing from them technology. the past as island with the united states developing technology. that has always been our ed. like a -- to provide cheap labor. right now, they are developing the technology and we will have to report from there. >> china has trillions of dollars in surplus and we do not. how can we continue to do a loan guarantee program when we have been kept -- the debt and deficit that we have to mo? >> we have to vet them carefully. we have to take some chances.
it is in our national interests to do so. the republicans have no problem with loan guarantees for the nuclear industry. they are not doing that well in the united states. they want to put more weight into loan guarantees. the cleanbest in energy, not just in the nuclear area, affordable, -- or solar power -- for solar power. >> are you concerned that your party might have to accept a debt reduction deal that does not have much in the way of new revenue? >> i do not think my party would go for it. i do not think the american people would go for. are we going to let billionaires' get tax breaks while we tell disabled people
with multiple problems that we are going to throw them out of institutions when they are on the medicaid program? that is not what america should be about. if they want to cut entitlements, i cannot imagine democrat supporting it. that would be getting us nowhere. >> how do you see the two sides come to get on an agreement for two. -- $1.20 trillion in spending cuts. democrats are going to protect entitlements. there is no money left. where does it come from? >> that means there is no balance. they just want to cut. in the end, it is pointed cost us more. it will cost us the social contract where we promised seniors there would be a medicare program for their health needs. it promised a safety net so they would not go to the bottom and
lose their dignity and the event being. it will maintain the integrity of this country. we are not best thing country of the halves with the have nots. the democrat would be pushed into the have not category. as what happened in america that is the trend we do not want. that is the trend republicans seem to direct as in in their policies. speaker boehner said yesterday that under no circumstances would they look at the raising of revenue or raising taxes to help pay for the deduction of the deficit. i cannot see how there is going to be any kind of deal. this super committee had an opportunity by the end of the year. if they fail, we will be here in 2012 and ousted the election. the american people was not to decide, do they want to give up
social security, medicaid. i would rather have a bipartisan compromise. you cannot comply with people who say it has to be their way only. >> do you believe the speaker wants to compromise jim b? we know that the tea party is driving the agenda. we have seen for ourselves that may be the speaker wants to compromise. >> the speaker said it again. do not talk about a balanced program. do not talk on revenue. it should be more cuts. you cannot cut the defense more than they have already agreed to. it has to be irresponsible cuts we are making.
there is a lot of money we can get out of there. it is getting excessive. you cannot cut the deficit appropriate it program. the only other place to cut would be in the infamous. that is the solution to the deficit, that is not going to produce jobs. it will cripple our country. we try to help people collect far as they can in the line and produce an economy where all of us can benefit. >> we have a few minutes. recent polls out say fewer than half of the individuals who at some point in still support him fervently. what went wrong in his message to cause americans to feel this way? >> the country is not doing well. well.